List Bruno endpoints

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (despite a limit parameter), ordering, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The term 'summaries' is vague.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single concise sentence that communicates the core function without redundancy. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on pagination, output format (what a summary includes), and how to handle large result sets. Sibling tools suggest overlapping functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning for 4 of 6 parameters by naming filters for method, request type, folder, and tags. However, it omits explanation of 'limit' and 'pathPrefix', and does not elaborate on the enum values for 'type'. With 0% schema description coverage, compensation is partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Lists endpoint summaries' with optional filters, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_collections and get_endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from search_endpoints or get_endpoints.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_endpoints for full-text search or get_endpoints for retrieving all endpoints. The description implies usage for filtered listing but provides no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.